9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or refund of this revised amount in response to the clarification sought by the range officer - Held that: - refund claim was filed for the credit relating to two ARE-1s - it was not proper on the part of the Commissioner (Appeals), to have adopted the date of filing of the claim for the revised amount, which was part of the amount originally claimed, as the date of filing the refund claim - origi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a refund claim for an amount of Rs. 50,73,000/- with the Assistant Commissioner (Coimbatore II Division) on 10-8-2004. The jurisdictional range officer had sought clarification of the assessee on various points relating to the refund claim vide his letter dated 26-8-2004. The required clarification was furnished on 1-9-2004. After receipt of the clarification, the jurisdictional Assistant Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that the Commissioner had erred in adopting the date of filing of the claim for the revised amount for computing the time limit with reference to the relevant date. Originally the appellants had filed refund claim for Rs. 50.73 lakhs being unutilized amount of credit lying in their account. Later, in response to the reference from the range officer, the amount of claim was revised to the cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Tribunal), where it was held that if the original refund claim was filed in time, but subsequently modified reducing the quantum of amount, the claim could not be rejected as time barred. 6. Ld. SDR reiterated the reasoning followed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. I have carefully considered the case records and submissions by both sides. In the instant case, the appellants init ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
